The wounds were "very devastating," said Connecticut's chief medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver II at the press conference following the Sandy Hook shootings in December.

The worst he had seen.

Pictures of the facial features of the dead children were shown to the families rather than allowing them to see their children right away.

First responders were traumatized and needed time off, which leaves one imagining the grisly scene that could so unravel those trained to work in traumatic scenes.

In the contentious debate over the banning of assault-style rifles, I think about what we have seen — pictures of the smiling faces of the Sandy Hook schoolchildren when they were alive and well; and what we have not seen — what a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle does to the bodies of first-graders.

Finding descriptions of what a Bushmaster rifle does to the human body is a challenge. There was, however, this from the Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine — a 2006 study, the "Pathology of Gunshot Wounds":

"Exit wounds from high-powered rifles may be large because of the high velocity and kinetic energy of rifle ammunition (Figure 5). Stellate-shaped exit wounds, which in rifle wounds occur over soft tissue as well as over bony surfaces, are common and may resemble contact entrance wounds."

We hear of their power and their destructive capabilities. We recoil in horror of what we imagine.

It's been said that the mind can conjure up greater terror than what the eyes can actually see. That may or may not be true. Although I have imagined the trembling fear in the eyes and hearts of the young victims, and while I am moved by President Barack Obama's hanging a painting from one of the victims in the private study of the Oval Office as a reminder in the fight for a ban against this particular weapon — I just don't think it's enough.

It's not enough when the National Rifle Association and its supporters quickly shift from the shootings at Sandy Hook to their Second Amendment rights. It's not enough because the further in time we move from that December slaughter, the more the faces of the victims will slowly fade for the public.

Already, the NRA and its supporters have moved on beyond the slaughter as if it were just another of the daily shootings in America. For the gun control advocates, it will be remembered with diminishing flickers.

Yes, Sandy Hook was a turning point, a watershed moment in the fight for some sensible gun control. But what is needed, as unthinkable as it may seem, is for some parent to step forward as Mamie Till did nearly 60 years ago when her 14-year-old son Emmett was brutally murdered in Mississippi.

She refused to let the nation regard it as another murder.

She refused to let the nation imagine the brutality that was done.

She refused to let the picture of a smiling boy taken the previous Christmas serve as the sole reminder.

She held an open-casket funeral and allowed no make-up to cover what was done.

She said she wanted the nation and the world to see just exactly the type of violence that was done.

The picture shocked the nation and galvanized a movement.

As the rhetoric over banning assault-style rifles revs up, it is important to show exactly what these weapons do. It is important to show what is at stake.

It would be shocking, sickening, disturbing and just about every other adjective one could possibly conceive to describe something horrendous as the slaughter of children.

But what we have not seen needs to be seen because sometimes the imagination is just not enough.